Admittedly pedantic question!
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well ed, it's pretty simple. Embark is a stand alone kind of word - it's not the word bark with the prefix em- attached to it. Em- isn't even a prefix in this case, so it's impossible to replace it with dis- and be correct.
It would be like saying "Why don't we replace emaciated with disaciated if we're talking about somebody who's heavy, as oppsed to extremely thin"?
Debark does sound like a lot more fun though.
It would be like saying "Why don't we replace emaciated with disaciated if we're talking about somebody who's heavy, as oppsed to extremely thin"?
Debark does sound like a lot more fun though.
Trending Topics
#8
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 5,150
Likes: 0
Voyager --
oh I love that 'more syllables' thing! Two of my faves are methodology instead of method (a favourite of academics) and fabrication instead of fabric (they use this one on home decorating shows all the time when they're talking about upholstery).
And I very much enjoy this board on the topic of travelization.
oh I love that 'more syllables' thing! Two of my faves are methodology instead of method (a favourite of academics) and fabrication instead of fabric (they use this one on home decorating shows all the time when they're talking about upholstery).
And I very much enjoy this board on the topic of travelization.
#13
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,242
Likes: 0
Weasel, Ooops.... the tree I'm refering to has already been cut! But I live in Oregon, where we literally have more than we know what to do with, and take care of them pretty well.
Faina, I like "offbark"! Sorry to have missed you.
Faina, I like "offbark"! Sorry to have missed you.



